Ellen and James White's family plot has an obelisk which apparently causes many people to wonder what the significance is and whether we should consider it a pagan symbol. Detractors of Ellen White see it as a sign that our church is not always faithful to uphold the beliefs we teach. That we should not have anything pagan associated with us. Some also consider steeples as pagan symbols.

Many people have asked me about the obelisk used on Ellen White's grave inBattle Creek, and also the memorial for her on the campus of Avondale College inAustralia. I inquired at the White Estate at the General Conference, and here iswhat I received.

___________________

Question: I have never heard of this before. Two people say that in the1970's when they visited the EGW grave site this large grave marker was notthere. So, when and why was it erected if indeed it is a Masonic symbol? Whowould authorize it to be done?

Answer Dear Brother _______,Thank you for contacting the Ellen G. White Estate. The marker functions for thefamily plot, standing in the middle of the plot rather than directly over thegrave of any of the family members buried there. The marker has been there sincethe 1880s, though I understand it was damaged by vandals on at least oneoccasion, so it may indeed have been off-site for repair when some folk visitedthe grave. I do not know for a fact that it was ever off-site, but I considerthis a possibility.

We have correspondence from G. I. Butler in 1884, who at the time was theGeneral Conference president, writing to W. C. White and Ellen White about itspurchase and installation. No one at the time seems to have believed that thisimplied any homage to Freemasonry or to paganism. Here is what I have sent toothers who asked about this matter in the past:

There is indeed an obelisk on the family plot where Mrs. White is buried, thoughit is not her tombstone as such, but rather serves as the family marker in thecenter of the plot. Some people have expressed surprise and concern to findan obelisk on the White family plot because of the obelisk's connection to paganworship in Egypt and to other questionable associations. Evidently, however,many people in the 19th century didn't think this was a problem. Adventists ofthat era seem to be among them. While looking for something else, we recentlyfound correspondence relating to this marker among the letters of George I.Butler, who was General Conference President when James White died in 1881 andfor a number of years after. On February 12, 1884, Elder Butler wrote to Mrs.White,"The dark colored granite monument at B.C. [Battle Creek] which you looked at Iordered for your husband's grave last week at your son Willie's invitation. Hetold me to have it charged to you. I regret to do this while the money lies inthe office which his friends contributed to show him respect for his memory.Will desired me to have this money put in the European Mission Board, but Idon't feel that I am authorized to do that without their consent. There is about$170 now in the office for that purpose and more that is subscribed which wouldbe paid in if called for."

This indicates that Mrs. White and W. C. White had seen the monument, andperhaps her son had as well. W. C. White gave Elder Butler approval for itspurchase. A letter from Elder Butler to W. C. White on February 10 of that yeardiscusses the cost of the monument "with the headstone and other stones" andsays that it "will be erected as soon as you send on the inscription." It isclear that the White family was involved in the selection of the monument.

Twenty years later, in 1904, Mrs. White wrote about a different suggestion forJames White's monument:After my husband had been laid away in the grave, his friends thought of puttingup a broken shaft as a monument. "Never!" said I, "never! He has done,singlehanded, the work of three men. Never shall a broken monument be placedover his grave!" ... {1SM 105.1}

We can only guess, but it may be that in contrast to that suggestion, she wasquite pleased to have such a well-formed, symmetrical monument placed on thefamily plot.

Some have asked about the obelisk and its supposed connection to Freemasonry.Seeing the obelisk on the family plot, a few have even supposed that Mrs. Whitemust have been involved herself in the Masonic movement. This is an unwarrantedconclusion. Mrs. White was an outspoken opponent of Freemasonry. While she wasin Australia, she was even shown two secret signs of high-ranking Masons, whichshe made in the presence of an Adventist worker who was deeply entangled inFreemasonry. She urged him to sever his connection with it. She also counseledothers not to be involved with Masonic orders.

So why the obelisk? Evidently she did not regard it as inherently a Masonic orpagan symbol, regardless of the fact (whether known to her or not) that Masonsand sun worshipers had used it. Symbols mean what people take them to mean. Thecross itself was once an abhorrent symbol of Roman oppression and cruelty, buttoday Christians around the world hold it as a symbol of our redemption throughChrist. Symbols may change their meaning. I remember being shocked once to seein an old synagogue a symbol that I would call the swastika. Nazi Germany gavethat symbol a certain meaning, but evidently it had not always had that meaning.When James White began to publish the Review as a bi-weekly publication (itbecame weekly in September of 1853), along with the date of publication he soongave the standard name for the day of the week on which it was published,whether Monday or Thursday (the day of publication varied some in those days).Soon, however, he made a change. The issue published "Thursday, May 12, 1853,"was followed two weeks later by the one published "Fifth-day, May 26, 1853." Forseveral decades the paper designated its publication day variously as"Fifth-day" and "Third-day" (for Tuesday), apparently out of concern over thedays' having been named for pagan gods. By the January 1, 1880, issue, however,the practice returned to using the standard names. Apparently our pioneersdecided by then that the use of those names carried no compromise of theirfaith. No one using those names today makes any devout reference to the pagangods. The names simply don't symbolize those gods for people today, regardlessof what they may once have meant. Similarly, whatever occult meaning may oncehave been communicated by an obelisk, as far as I know, by the 19th century atleast, this meaning seems no longer to have been operative for people generally,though it did have continued mystic significance for Freemasons. Clearly,though, Mrs. White did not hold such beliefs.